Brian Knight ejected Athletics Bench Coach Chip Hale for arguing a spectator interference/runner's placement call in the bottom of the 6th inning of the A's-Giants game. With one out and one on, Giants batter Andres Torres hit a 1-2 changeup from A's pitcher Jerry Blevins down the left field line and over the third base bag.
 |
| To nullify interference, Blanco scores. |
As the ball bounced toward the foul wall along the Giants bullpen, a fan reached onto the playing field and touched the ball, resulting in spectator interference and Knight's ruling that baserunner R1 Gregor Blanco shall be awarded home from his initial position at first base. Replays indicate Blanco was progressing past second base at the time of interference, the call was correct. At the time of the ejection, the A's were leading, 6-4. The A's ultimately won the contest, 9-6.
This is Brian Knight (91)'s second ejection of 2013.
Brian Knight now has 8 points in the UEFL (4 + 2 MLB + 2 Y = 8).
Crew Chief Gerry Davis now has 2 points in the Crew Division (1 Previous + 1 Correct Call = 2).
This is the 48th ejection of 2013.
This is the 23rd Manager ejection of 2013.
This the A's 5th ejection of 2013, 1st in the AL West (
OAK 5; LAA, SEA 1; HOU, TEX 0).
This is Chip Hale's first career MLB ejection.
This is Brian Knight's first ejection since
April 17 (Joe Maddon; QOC = Y).
Wrap:
Oakland Athletics vs. San Francisco Giants, 5/29/13
Video:
After being chewed out by bullpen coach Mark Gardner for interference, fan is ejected (SF)
Video:
Melvin airs dispute with Knight, crew chief Davis over fair/foul and runner's award (OAK)
For review of this QOC, both the SF and OAK broadcast's were consulted. Oakland's broadcasters Glen Kuiper and Ray Fosse, however, fell into a Hawk Harrelson pitfall from 1991 (see video below) in which both broadcasters falsely accused Gerry Davis of changing his original call, vehemently argued that on spectator interference it is an automatic two-base award, alleged that "everyone in the stadium" saw the interference except for all four umpires and, finally, stated that umpiring throughout baseball is lacking in quality. Suffice it to say, the visiting telecast proved of very little value in evaluating this play.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM3QlGI2EiA
Challenge. Runner was progressing past 2B, not 3B at the time of the INF. F7 was close to fielding the ball, which died as a result of the INF. R1 would not have scored on the play. Fosse is a tool when it comes to umpiring, but don't let your distaste for his style effect your judgement of the play.
ReplyDeleteAfter taking a shot to the cup, Manny Gonzalez ejects Jhonny Peralta for arguing balls and strikes in Pittsburgh.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter whether he was rounding second or third -- if in the umpire's judgment that the runner would have scored without the interference, he is granted home plate. Point being the attempt to nullify interference. Considering Blanco is one of the faster runners in baseball, I think Knight [and crew] got this call correct. I own Knight, so I'm abstaining on any prospective challenge: but I'm just offering my insight here.
ReplyDeleteAnother crap challenge...each season it gets worse.
ReplyDeleteReally?!?! Blanco could score from 1st on a double down the line any day of the week.
ReplyDeleteMaybe next year there should be a proposed rule that in order for a challenge to be valid it must accompanied by all relevent rule citations. At least then people would have to stop, think, and be sure that they have some basis for challenging a call. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry--this is far from a "crap challenge". Given where F7 was when the interference occurred (about four steps running steps off the line), it's far from certain that Torres would score on that play. Unless the ball takes a weird hop off the wall, he's going to get to the ball about the same time Torres reaches 3rd.
ReplyDeleteNow I really want to see the Oakland feed, for comedic purposes.
ReplyDeleteIt's a crap challenge for one reason alone -- it's completely up to the umpires what to do with the baserunners when there's spectator interference.
ReplyDeleteSo, de facto, they are right no matter where they place the runners.
Well, my point is, that while it is up to their discretion where the runners are placed, they are not infallible. If you want to say that "umpire discretion" calls are always correct, then every check swing call is automatically correct, because it's up to the umpire to determine whether an attempt was made to hit the pitch.
ReplyDeleteEspecially when the rule in question, 3.16 clearly states: "The umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference." ... The umpire is always right in this situation.
ReplyDeleteI was actually going to ask at the end of the season whether or not that had been brought up before, as I would like to see all check swing calls be given a QOC of Irrecusable becuase of that very reason.
ReplyDeleteAs long as you allow Incorrect QOC on check swings, which by rule an umpire can't get wrong, you must allow it here as well.
ReplyDeleteYes, in 2011, the proposed Check Swing irrecusability clause failed to pass, earning 32% of the vote. The proposed amendment 6.b.ii.h would have eliminated QOC for check swing calls.
ReplyDeleteThis ruling has been challenged and is under review by the UEFL Appeals Board.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why we can't bring it up again. Seeing as how none of us were on the field, we don't really have a place to dispute the umpire's discretion in these type of situations.
ReplyDeleteNot infallible, certainly, but none of us really have any business judging where an R1 should end up after something like this. R1 goes wherever the crew says he goes.
ReplyDeleteI'd be OK with this being irrecusable, BTW, for that reason.
Maybe BAPACop can start a campaign to persuade more voters. I actually agree that that makes a lot of sense. Really any call that is purely umpire discretion may be best off as irrecusable. But then again we'd miss out on all of this debate.
ReplyDeleteAnd all the worthless challenges ;-)
ReplyDeleteAnd here's the ejection video: http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=27594869
ReplyDeleteAnd here's the plot in question: http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfxVB/cache/numlocation.php-pitchSel=502046&game=gid_2013_05_30_detmlb_pitmlb_1&batterX=24&innings=yyyyyyyyy&sp_type=1&s_type=3.gif
Fantastic; Oakland's feed: http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=27573599
ReplyDeleteIt's really kind of painful to listen to that level of ignorance.
ReplyDeleteIn re 048 Knight 2
ReplyDeleteAfter review, the Original Ruling has been affirmed in a 3-0-0 decision by the UEFL Appeals Board. One Appeals Board members voted to confirm the Original Ruling while two elected to uphold it.
Majority Opinion, tmac:
Uphold, There is no evidence to change original ruling. Knight is more than capable of placing runners.
Therefore, the Board affirms the Original Ruling.
Confirmed: BT_Blue
Upheld: tmac, RichMSN
Overturned: -
Abstained: Gil (posted Original Ruling), Jeremy (deployment), Turducken (owns Knight), yawetag (vacation)